Дипломная работа: Syntagmatic and paradigmatic peculiarities of adverbs in English

Дипломная работа: Syntagmatic and paradigmatic peculiarities of adverbs in English

Ministry of Education and
Science of Ukraine

Department of English
Philology

Diploma paper

Syntagmatic and paradigmatic
peculiarities of adverbs in English

Lviv - 2010

Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1. The adverb in English theoretical grammar

1.1
Categorial
meaning of the adverb

1.2
Formal
characteristics of the adverb

1.3
Syntactic
functions and positional characteristics of the adverb

Chapter 2. Paradigmatics of adverbs

2.1 Semantic classification of adverbs

2.2 Lexico-grammatical subdivision of adverbs

Chapter 3. Syntagmatic valency of adverbs and its actualization
in speech

3.1 Syntactic valency and combinability patterns of
adverbs

3.2 Semantic and syntactic properties of adverbs of degree

3.3 The use of adverbs of
degree with gradable and non-gradable adjectives

3.4 Semantic preferences
of amplifiers

Conclusion

Summary

List of References

Appendix

Introduction

The diploma
paper sets out to explore paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations of adverbs in
modern English. The work considers such branches of grammar as morphology and
syntax and is concerned with the two levels of word relations.

A word as a
part of the language system is considered on two levels:

1) the syntagmatic level;

2) the paradigmatic level.

On the
paradigmatic level it is the relationship with other words in the vocabulary
system. On the syntagmatic level the semantic structure of a word is analyzed
in its linear relationships with neighbouring words.

The
differentiation between paradigmatics and syntagmatics is based on recognition
of the linguistic planes: 1 – the plane of language; 2 – the plane of speech.
Language is a system of means of expression while speech should be understood
as the manifestation of the system of language in the process of communication.
Language planes are structured paradigmatically, speech planes –
syntagmatically.

Paradigmatic
relations are relations of contrast. They exist only in the potential and never
in an instance. From the viewpoint of the text analyst, they express a contrast
between the meaning (and so the form) that was chosen for use in the text and
the one or more meanings (and so forms) that might have been chosen (but were
not). In other words, paradigmatic relations exist only in the language that is
used to produce a text-sentence and not in the sentence itself [23, 134].

Syntagmatic
relations are based on the linear character of speech. They enable language to
function as a means of communication. When they are brought into play,
linguistic elements combine to form information-carrying utterances. They are
therefore the functional relations of language [32, 60].

The present
research is aimed at investigating the salient features of adverbs in
English. The major research focus in the field of syntagmatics is on adverbs of
degree as the most syntagmatically active class.

Most of the
investigations in the field of morphology deal with other parts of speech, mainly
verbs, nouns or adjectives. The adverb due to its ontological status and the
categorical meaning defined as that of secondary property, has unjustly fallen
out of research focus. The textbooks on theoretical grammar provide only scanty
information about adverbs. However, the adverb is liable to present us with a
whole bundle of problems. Firstly, there are a lot of borderline cases of
transition between adverbs, on the one hand, and prepositions, particles and
conjunctions, on the other. Though, a number of fairly plausible viewpoints on
the issue have been expressed and the objective criteria have been suggested,
they do not yield clear results and, a fully convincing solution to the problem
has not been found yet [4; 5; 8; 9]. This calls for the need to consider these
cases of grammatical homonymy at some length. Secondly, wrong use of adverbs
and adverbial collocations appears to be one of the major errors notoriously
common with the students. This determines the topicality of the
research, its theoretical and practical value.

The object
of investigation is the adverb, including simple, derived, compound and
composite. The subject of research is the paradigmatic correlation and
syntagmatic peculiarities of adverbs, their combinability patterns. Such methods
of investigation, as structural-semantic, distributional and the elements
of the quantitative analysis are used in this paper.

The tasks
of the diploma paper are:

-
to
determine the categorial meaning of the adverb and its formal characteristics;

-
to
carry out the analysis of syntactic functions of the adverb;

-
to
analyze the main classes of adverbs;

-
to
compare paradigmatically
relevant classifications of the adverb;

-
to
explore syntactic valency and combinability patterns of adverbs;

-
to
examine the use of adverbs of degree and to determine their semantic
preferences.

According to
the spheres of concern the work falls into an Introduction, three chapters,
conclusions and the list of references which together with the appendix
comprises __ pages. Chapter 1 deals with the analysis of the adverb in accord
with the 3-criteria
principle of the lexico-grammatical word classification. Chapter 2 is concerned
with the paradigmatic relations of adverbs, providing the semantic and
lexico-grammatical classifications of the adverb. In Chapter 3 semantic and syntactic
valencies of adverbs and their realization in speech are described. Most of the
examples presented in this diploma paper are taken form modern English
dictionaries.

Chapter 1. The adverb in
English theoretical grammar

1.1
Categorial
meaning of the adverb

In accord with
the 3-criteria principle of the lexico-grammatical word classification
(semantic, formal and functional) [35], parts of speech are discriminated on
the basis of:

1) common categorial meaning;

2) common paradigm
(morphological form and specific forms of derivation);

3) common syntactic function.

The
categorical meaning of the adverb is secondary property which implies
qualitative, quantitative, or circumstantial characteristics of actions,
states, qualities.

The adverb is
usually defined as a word expressing either property of an action, or property
of another property, or circumstances in which an action occurs [22, 146]. From this definition it is
difficult to define adverbs as a class, because they comprise a most
heterogeneous group of words, and there is considerable overlap between the
class and other word classes. They have many kinds of form, meaning and
function.

Alongside such
undoubtful adverbs as here, now, often, seldom, always, there are many others
which also function as words of other classes. Such words which are different
in their lexical meaning and also in their grammatical category (part of
speech) but identical in their form are interparadigmatic homonyms
(lexical-grammatical) [17, 118]. Thus, adverbs like dead (dead tired), clear
(to get clear away), clean (I've clean forgotten), slow, easy (he would say
that slow and easy) coincide with corresponding adjectives (a dead body, clear
waters, clean hands). Adverbs like past, above, in, up, down, about, since,
before, over are homonymous with prepositions. There is also a special group of
pronominal adverbs when, where, how, why used either as interrogative words or
as connectives to introduce subordinate clauses [3, 87]:

Where would you like to go? (an
interrogative pronominal adverb)

We’ll go where
you want. (a conjunctive pronominal adverb)

Some adverbs
may be used rather like a verb, as in “Up. Jenkins! Down, Peter!”, where the
first word is like an imperative [25, 92].

There are
three adverbs connected with numerals: once, twice, and thrice (the latter
being archaic). They denote measure or frequency:

She went there
once a week [41].

I saw him twice
last month [41].

Twice is also
used in the structure twice as long, etc. [22, 92].

He is twice
as tall as his brother [40].

She is twice
as clever [40].

Beginning with
three the idea of frequency or repetition is expressed by the phrases three
times, four times [25, 92]:

He went there four
times.

He is four
times as bigger.

She is ten
times cleverer. [25, 92]

In many cases
the border-line between adverbs and words of the other classes is defined
syntactically:

I called out
to him as he ran past [38]. (adverb)

I called out
to him as he ran past the house [38]. (preposition)

We were locked
in [41]. (adverb)

We were locked
in the warehouse [41]. (preposition)

He did
everything slowly but surely [38]. (adverb)

Surely you know him [38]. (modal
word)

The definition
of adverb presented above, though certainly informative and instructive, also
fails to directly point out the relation between the adverb and the adjective
as the primary qualifying part of speech.

In an attempt
to overcome this drawback, M. Y. Blokh defines the adverb as a notional word
expressing a non-substantive property, that is, a property of a non-substantive
referent [13, 221]. This formula immediately shows the actual correlation
between the adverb and the adjective, since the adjective is a word expressing
a substantive property.

Properties may
be of a more particular, "organic" order and, a more general and
detached, "inorganic" order [13, 221]. Of the organic properties, the
adverb denotes those characterising processes and other properties. Of the
inorganic properties, the adverb denotes various circumstantial characteristics
of processes or whole situations built around processes.

The above
definition, approaching the adverb as a word of the secondary qualifying order,
presents the entire class of adverbial words as the least self-dependent of all
the four notional parts of speech. Indeed, the truly complete nominative value
is inherent only in the noun, which is the name of substances [15]. The verb
comes next in its self-dependent nominative force, expressing processes as dynamic
relations of substances, i.e. their dynamic relational properties in the broad
sense. After that follow qualifying parts of speech — first the adjective denoting
qualifications of substances, and then the adverb denoting qualifications of
non-substantive phenomena which find themselves within the range of notional
signification.

The adverb is
characterised by its own, specific nominative value, providing for its
inalienable status in the system of the parts of speech. Hence, the complaints
of some linguists that the adverb is not rigorously defined and in fact presents
something like a "dump" for those words which have been rejected by
other parts of speech can hardly be taken as fully justified [13, 221]. On the
other hand, since the adverb does denote qualifications of the second order,
not of the first one like the adjective, it includes a great number of semantically
weakened words which are in fact intermediate between notional and functional
lexemes by their status and often display features of pronominal nature.

1.2 Formal characteristics
of the adverb

In terms of
the formal criterion the adverb is characterized by the following features [13,
39]:

1) the forms of the degrees
of comparison for qualitative adverbs;

2) the specific suffixal
forms of derivation.

The only
pattern of morphological change for adverbs is the same as for adjectives, the
degrees of comparison [25, 94]. With regard to the category of the degrees of
comparison adverbs (like adjectives) fall into comparables and non-comparables.
The number of non-comparables is much greater among adverbs than among
adjectives. Only adverbs of manner and certain adverbs of time and place can
form degrees of comparison. The three grades are called positive,
comparative, and superlative degrees.

Adverbs that
are identical in form with adjectives take inflections following the same
spelling and phonetic rules as for adjectives:

hard —
harder — hardest

soon —
sooner — soonest

early —
earlier — earliest

Several
adverbs ending in -ly (quickly, loudly) form comparatives according to
the same pattern, dropping their adverb-forming suffix. These adverbs acquired
the form in -ly only recently and retained the older forms of the
comparative and superlative:

quickly –
quicker – quickest

loudly –
louder – loudest

However most
disyllabic adverbs in -ly and all polysyllabic ones form the comparative
and superlative analytically, by means of more and most:

beautifully — more beautifully —
most beautifully

cleverly — more
cleverly — most cleverly

As with adjectives, there
is a small group of adverbs with comparatives and superlatives formed from
different stems (suppletive forms). These comparatives and
superlatives are identical with those for the corresponding adjectives and can
be differentiated from the latter only syntactically:

well — better —
best

badly — worse —
worst

much — more —
most

little — less —
least

All the
problems connected with the adjectival degrees of comparison retain their force
for the adverbial degrees of comparison. Some grammarians do not admit forms
like more quickly, most quickly to be analytical degrees of comparison [9].
They distinguish only two types of degrees of comparison in adverbs:

·
the
suffix type (quickly – quicker – quickest)

·
the
suppletive type (well — better — best)

Adverbs vary
in their structure. In accord with their word-building structure adverbs may be simple,
derived, compound and composite [25].

Derived adverbs may be classified in
several groups [30, 164]. The two largest groups are those formed from adjectives and participles by adding the suffix -ly,
e. g.: hopefully, physically, strangely, falsely, occasionally, lately, immediately,
constantly, purely, slowly, charmingly, etc.

There has been
a marked discrepancy of opinion concerning deadjectival adverbs in terms of two
mutually exclusive types of morphological derivation – inflection and
word-formation [5]. Two views have been put forward, according to which adverbs
are treated as either the inflectional paradigmatic form of a parent adjective
or its derivative [6]. The former view can be refuted if we proceed from the
notion of symmetry/asymmetry of the semantic structures. The structures are considered
symmetric if they are characterized by both quantitative and qualitative
convergence of their sense components; conversely, the parent and the resultant
semantic structures are considered asymmetric if they diverge either in the
number or in the character of the meanings conveyed [5].

According to
Garipova N.D., adjectival and adverbial forms are asymmetric; the process of
deriving adverbs from adjectives involves the semantic shift that yields two
possibilities: the adverb may develop new meanings, or, more often, the
semantic structure of the motivated adverb turns out to be more simplified and
narrower in comparison with that of the motivating adjective [2]. For example,
the adverb roughly retains only 3 meanings out of 17, inherent in the semantic
structure of the adjective rough. All this leads to conclude that adverbs
cannot be regarded as inflectional forms of adjectives.

The third
group consists of those that are formed by means of the derivational prefix -a
(phonemically [э]) to nouns, adjectives or verbs. Of
about sixty of them in more or less common use nearly half are formed from
nouns: aboard, aside, away, ahead, apart, across etc. The rest are about equally divided
among those formed from verbs, e. g.: amiss, astir; from adjectives — anew, abroad.

In traditional
grammars such words are generally classed as both adjectives and adverbs and
they are so listed in most dictionaries, which seems hardly justified since
from the structural point of view none of them can fit the basic adjective position
between determiner and noun (We cannot say the aloud voice or the adrift boat)
[30, 164].

The fourth
group of derived adverbs originally very small, but in present-day English
exhibiting signs of rapid growth includes those formed by adding the derivational
suffix -wise to nouns. A few adverbs of this type are well-established words like clockwise,
otherwise, likewise; others are recent coinages or nonce-words like crabwise
and actor-wise. In American English the suffix -wise is most active and can be
more freely attached to many nouns to create adverbs like personnel-wise. Such
forms are recognised in writing by the use of the hyphen.

Then comes a
smaller group of adverbs formed by the addition of the derivational suffix -ward(s)
to a limited group of nouns; home- ward(s), forward(s), backward(s). Most
adverbs of this group have two forms, one with the final -s and one without, variously
distributed. The forms without -s are homonymous with adjectives: the backward child, he looked backward.

The less
common suffixes are the following:

-fold

-like

-most

-way(s)

twofold, manifold

warlike

innermost, outermost

longways, sideways

Compound
adverbs
are formed of two stems: sometimes, somewhere, somehow, someplace, nowhere, everywhere, anyway, downstairs, etc. There are fewer than
twenty of these in common use.

Composite
phrasal adverbs consist of two or more word-forms, as a great deal, a little bit, far
enough, now and then, from time to time, sort of, kind of, a hell of, a lot of,
a great deal of, at least, at most, at last, to and fro, upside down. Such adverbs are lexically and grammatically
indivisible and form a single idea.

Considered in
their structure, composite phrasal adverbs may be classified as follows [30,
164]:

1)
preposition
+ noun: at hand, at home, by
heart, on horseback, on foot, in turn, to date;

2)
noun
+ preposition + noun: arm in arm, day by day,
day after day, day to day, face to face, word for word, year by year;

3)
preposition
+ substantivised adjective: at last, at first, at
large, in large, in full, in quiet, in short, in vain, of late, of old;

4)
preposition
+ verbal noun made through conversion:
at a guess, at a run, in a rush, on the move, on the run;

5)
preposition
+ numeral: at first, at once, at one,
by twos;

6)
coordinate
adverbs: by
and by, on and off (= off
and on), on and on;

In point of
fact most adverbs of that kind may be reasonably referred to as grammatical
idioms [30, 165]. This can be seen, for instance, in the unusual absence of the
article before their noun components and specialised use of the noun in its singular form
only: on foot (but not on the foot, or on feet which may occur in free
prepositional word-groups), in fact (but not in the fact), at first (but not at
the first), etc.

There is a miscellaneous
class of adverbs that have no formal signals at all to distinguish them in
isolation; we know them as adverbs because of their positions in utterances, in
which the other parts of speech are clearly identifiable. Many adverbs in this
group are fairly frequent in occurrence: always, now, then, here, there, often,
seldom, still, even. Others in this group are words which may also appear as
other parts of speech, such as: downstairs, home, late, little, fast, stow,
early, far, hard, near:

My friend is
the world’s fastest runner [38]. (adjective)

The water was
rising very fast [38]. (adverb)

It is hard
to believe that she’s only nine [40]. (adjective)

He was still
breathing hard after his run [40]. (adverb)

Formations of
the type from
outside, till now, before then, etc. cannot be included in the word-building
sets of adverbs [13, 223]. It is not difficult to see that such formations
differ in principle from the ones cited above. The difference consists in the
fact that their parts are semantically not blended into an indivisible lexemic
unity and present combinations of a preposition with a peculiar adverbial
substantive —
a word occupying
an intermediary lexico-grammatical status between the noun and the adverb. This
is most clearly seen on ready examples liberally offered by English texts of
every stylistic standing:

The pale moon
looked at me from above [13, 223].

By now Sophie must have received
the letter and very soon we shall hear from her [13, 223].

The departure
of the delegation is planned for later this week [41].

The freely
converted adverbial substantives in prepositional collocations belong to one of
the idiomatic characteristics of English, and may be likened, with due
alteration of details, to partially substantivised adjectives of the adjectivid
type. On this analogy the
adverbial substantives in question may be called "adverbids" [13,
223].

Furthermore,
there are in English some other peculiar structural types of adverbs which are
derivationally connected with the words of non-adverbial lexemic classes by
conversion [13, 223]. Conversion consist in making a new word from some
existing word by changing the category of a part of speech, the morphemic shape
of the original word remaining unchanged [17, 118]. To adverbs coined by
conversion belong both adverbs of full notional value and adverbs of
half-notional value.

A peculiar set
of converted notional adverbs is formed by adjective-stem conversives, such as
fast, late, hard, high, close, loud, tight, etc. The peculiar feature of these
adverbs consists in the fact that practically all of them have a parallel form
in -ly, the two component units of each pair often differentiated in meaning or
connotation: to work hard — hardly to work at all; to fall flat into the water — to refuse flatly; to speak loud — to criticise loudly; to fly high over
the lake — to raise a highly
theoretical question.

Among the
adjective-stem converted adverbs there are a few words with the non-specific
-ly originally in-built in the adjective (daily, weekly, lively, timely):

Invoices are
signed on a daily basis [38]. (adjective)

The machines
are inspected twice daily [38]. (adverb)

The purely
positional nature of the conversion in question, i.e. its having no support in
any differentiated categorial paradigms, can be reflected by the term
"fluctuant conversives" [13] which is proposed to use as the name of
such formations.

As for the
fluctuant conversives of weakened pronominal semantics, very characteristic of
English are the adverbs that positionally interchange with prepositions and
conjunctive words (before, after, round, within): never before — never before our meeting; somewhere
round — round the corner; not to
be found within — within
a minute.

Among the
various types of adverbs, those formed from adjectives by means of the suffix
-ly not only occupy the most representative place but also pose a special
problem.

The problem is
introduced by the very regularity of their derivation, the rule of which can be
formulated quite simply: each qualitative adjective has a parallel adverb in
–ly [13, 226]: silent — silently, slow — slowly, tolerable — tolerably, pious — piously, sufficient — sufficiently, tired — tiredly, explosive — explosively, etc.

This
regularity of formation accompanied by the general qualitative character of
semantics gave cause to A. I. Smirnitsky to advance the view that both sets of
words belong to the same part of speech, the qualitative adverbs in -ly being
in fact adjectives of specific combinability [9, 174-175].

The strong
point of the adjectival interpretation of qualitative adverbs in -ly is the
demonstration of the actual similarity between the two lexemic sets in their
broader evaluative function, which fact provides for the near-identity of the
adjectival and adverbial grammatical categories of comparison. On the whole,
however, the theory in question is hardly acceptable for the mere reason that
derivative relations in general are not at all relations of lexico-grammatical
identity; for that matter, they are rather relations of non-identity, since
they actually constitute a system of production of one type of lexical units
from another type of lexical units [13, 227]. As for the types of units
belonging to the same or different lexemic classes, this is a question of their
actual status in the system of lexicon, i. e. in the lexemic paradigm of
nomination reflecting the fundamental correlations between the lexemic sets of
language. Since the English lexicon
does distinguish adjectives and adverbs; since adjectives are
substantive-qualifying words in distinction to adverbs, which are
non-substantive qualifying words; since, finally, adverbs in -ly do preserve
this fundamental nonsubstantive-qualification character — there can't be any question of their
being "adjectives" in any rationally conceivable way. As for the
regularity or irregularity of derivation, it is absolutely irrelevant to the
identification of their class-lexemic nature [13, 228].

Thus, the
whole problem is not a problem of part-of-speech identity; it is a problem of
inter-class connections, in particular, of inter-class systemic division of
functions, and, certainly, of the correlative status of the compared units in
the lexical paradigm of nomination.

But worthy of
attention is the relation of the adverbs in question to adverbs of other types
and varieties, i. e. their intra-class correlations. As a matter of fact, the
derivational features of other adverbs, in sharp contrast to the ly-adverbs, are
devoid of uniformity to such an extent that practically all of them fall into a
multitude of minor non-productive derivational groups [7]. Besides, the bulk of
notional qualitative adverbs of other than ly-derivation have ly-correlatives
(both of similar and dissimilar meanings and connotations). These facts cannot
but show that adverbs in -ly should be looked upon as the standard type of the
English adverb as a whole [13, 229].

1.3 Syntactic functions
and positional characteristics of the adverb

Adverbs may
perform different functions, modifying different types of words, phrases,
sentences. Some adverbs are restricted in their combinability whereas others
may modify different words, for instance enough, which may be used in to work
enough, not quickly enough, quick enough. The most typical function of the
adverb is that of adverbial modifier [8].

Adverbs may
function as adverbial modifiers of manner, place, time, degree to a
finite or non-finite form of the verb:

He started his
career in St Petersburg - or Leningrad as it then was [41].

(time)

The south should remain dry, but everywhere else will
have heavy rain.

[41]. (place)

Adam obviously
adored his wife [40]. (manner)

I rather
suspect we’re making a mistake [38]. (degree)

Some adverbs
of time though synonymous, are used in different syntactic patterns. Thus,
already is used in affirmative sentences, and yet - in interrogative and
negative sentences:

Tim has already
come back from his trip [40].

I haven’t
finished my report yet [38].

Have you
finished yet [38]?

However,
already may occur in interrogative and negative sentences when there is an
element of surprise or the question is suggestive, that is the speaker expects
an affirmative answer:

Have they
finished already [35]?

Adverbs may
function as adverbial modifiers to an adjective or another adverb [19].
Usually the modifying adverb is an intensifier (very, rather, awfully, so,
terribly, extremely, most, utterly, unusually, delightfully, unbelievably,
amazingly, strikingly, highly, that, etc.) The same applies to composite
adverbs, such as (kind of, sort of, a good bit of, a lot of, a hell of, a great
deal of, etc.):

It is terribly
important for parents to be consistent [38].

This new
program is unbelievably good [41].

It made me
feel kind of awkward [41].

Some adverbs -
still, yet, far, much, any combine with comparative adjectives (much worse, not
any better, still greater, etc.)

Adverbs of
degree can modify certain kinds of prepositional phrases:

They lived nearly
on the top of the hill [40].

His remarks
were not quite to the point [40].

Comparative
adverbs are used in clauses of proportional agreement, that is, parallel
clauses in which qualities or actions denoted in them increase or decrease at
an equal rate [25, 177]:

The longer I think about it the
less I understand your reasons [41].

To express the
idea that a quality or action decreases or increases at an even rate the
comparative may be repeated, the two identical forms being connected by and:

He cried louder
and louder [25, 177].

There are some
adverbs which may modify nouns or words of nominal character, functioning as
attribute, as in: the way ahead, the trip abroad, the journey home, his
return home, the sentence above (below), the day before. A few adverbs can premodify
nouns without losing their adverbial character: the then president, in after
years, the above sentence, the now generation.

As adverbs
modify words of different classes, they accordingly occupy different positions
in the sentence. In comparison with other words, adverbs may be considered as
the most movable words. However, adverbs are not identical in their ability to be moved to
another position in the structure. There are generally four possible positions
for adverbs in the sentence [18, 397]:

1)
at the
head of the sentence;

2)
between
the subject and predicate or, if the predicate is a complicated form, the
adverb appears after the first auxiliary verb, link-verb or a modal verb;

3)
before
the word the adverb modifies;

4)
at the
end of the sentence.

Different
semantic groups of adverbs tend to appear in different positions. Thus, many
adverbs of time and frequency prefer Position 2:

A good strong
cup of coffee is just what I need right now [41].

He is always
in time for meals [38].

They sometimes
stay up all night [41].

However, some
of time adverbs appear in Position 4:

He came eventually
[40].

The telephone
rang, and he answered it immediately [40].

She hasn’t
finished her breakfast yet [38].

Ifany adverbs of time and frequency are found in positions other than those
characteristic of them, it means that these adverbs are intended for special
emphasis [21, 399]:

They usually are very punctual. (common)

Usually they are very punctual. (emphatic)

Adverbs of place and direction usually occur in Position 4:

I looked for it everywhere [38].

The young
people were enjoying themselves outside [38].

Adverbs of
manner commonly appear in Position 4, after the predicate verb:

He gave her
the money reluctantly [41].

She looked at
me suspiciously [41].

Some adverbs
of manner may occasionally be found in Position 2:

She carefully
picked up all the bits of broken glass [40].

They secretly
decided to leave the town [40].

Occasionally adverbs of manner may be found in Position 1. In that case
the adverb does not only modify the predicative verb, but also the subject:

Angrily he denied that he had stolen the documents [41]. (= he was
angry when he denied that he had stolen the documents)

Adverbs of degree (or intensifiers) are usually placed in Position 3,
before the word they modify:

It’s absolutely the best museum in the country [38].

I definitely saw him crossing the street [38].

The adverb enough, when it modifies an adjective or an adverb, is
placed in post-position to them:

You can go to school when you're old enough [40].

He didn’t work quickly enough [40].

However, adverbs of degree (intensifiers), if they modify verbs, may also
be found in Position 4, at the end of the sentence:

The only way Glass could overcome this irreconcilable difference was by
doing away with the bar lines completely [41].

But if the plea can be supported by a finding of guilt alone, a defendant
might escape punishment altogether [40].

When occupying the initial position in the sentence, altogether is used
parenthetically as a conjunctive adverb (= on the whole):

Latin America is a world where primitive ways of life exist near
ultra-modern cities. Altogether, it is a continent full of vitality
[40].

Chapter 2. Paradigmatics
of adverbs

2.1 Semantic
classification of adverbs

The adverb in
English undergoes two paradigmatically relevant classifications:

1) semantic;

2) lexico-grammatical.

Semantic
classification is based on the meaning of adverbs. According to their meaning,
adverbs fall into the following groups [18, 393]:

Some students
lose marks simply because they don't read the question properly [41].

It's important
to write these goals down, rather than merely think about them [41].

2)
additive:
again,
also, either, equally, even, too, etc.

She stayed and
nursed him back to health again [38].

You must have
a good education, but practical training is equally important [38].

7.
Viewpoint
adverbs are
used to make clear what viewpoint the speaker is speaking from; that is,
identifying what features of something are being talked about (economically, morally,
politically, scientifically, weather-wise, financially, ideologically,
industrially, environmentally, logically, medically, outwardly, technically,
visually, etc.):

Financially,
the
accident has been a disaster for the owners of the tunnel [21, 156].

Geographically
and linguistically,
these islands are closer to the mainland than to the neighboring islands
[21, 156].

Economically,
the
project is bound to fail [40].

The brothers
may be alike physically, but they have very different personalities
[40].

A number of
phrases are used in a similar way (politically speaking, in political terms, in
terms of politics, from a political point of view, as far as politics are
concerned):

Politically/In
political terms, this summer is a crucial time for the government [21, 156].

Financially/From
a financial point of view, it is a good investment [21, 156].

8.
Attitudinal
adverbs which
express the speaker's comment on the content of what he is saying. Such adverbs
can be of two kinds:

1)
adverbs
expressing a comment on the truth-value of what is
being said, indicating the extent to which the speaker believes
what he is saying is true: admittedly, allegedly, apparently, certainly,
decidedly, definitely, doubtless, maybe, obviously, perhaps, possibly,
presumably, probably, quite likely, supposedly, surely, undoubtedly, etc.:

Few women, presumably,
would want to return to the assumptions on which the old system was based [40].

He was supposedly
delivering some papers to her but I think it was just an excuse to see her
[40].

The impact,
occurring shortly before midnight, apparently knocked out all
communications before warning could be given [41].

Perhaps the public does not have
much choice in the matter [38].Certainly, he had very little reason to fear anyone [38].

The adverbs when,
where, how and why belonging to different semantic groups mentioned above have
one point in common — they serve to form questions and introduce some
kinds of subordinate clauses [15]. In the former case, owing to their auxiliary
function, they are called interrogative adverbs (a). In the latter case, also
owing to their auxiliary function, they are called conjunctive adverbs (b). In
both cases they perform different adverbial functions in the sentence:

a)
When
did you see him last? (adverbial modifier of time)

Where are you
going? (adverbial modifier of place)

How did you
manage it? (adverbial modifier of manner)

Why didn't you
tell me about it? (adverbial modifier of cause)

b)
Sunday
was the day when he was least busy.

(adverbial modifier of time)

The thing to
find out was where he was then.

(adverbial modifier of place)

How it was
done remains a mystery to me.

(adverbial
modifier of manner)

I wanted to
know why he had left us so abruptly.

(adverbial
modifier of cause)

As is seen
from the above examples, the conjunctive adverbs
can introduce attributive, predicative, subject and object clauses.

The adverb how,
in addition to the above functions, can also
be placed at the head of an exclamatory sentence. In this case it is
often followed by an adjective or an adverb but it may also be
used alone. This how is sometimes called the exclamatory how [18, 395]:

How unfair grown-ups are!

Oh, how
the baby cries! [18, 395]

2.2 Lexico-grammatical
subdivision of adverbs

syntagmatic
paradigmatic peculiarities adverbs english

Adverbs may be
divided into three lexico-grammatical subclasses: qualitative, quantitative,
and circumstantial [13; 13].

Qualitative
adverbs
show the quality of an action or state much in the same way as a qualitative
adjective shows the quality of some substance (walks quickly and a quick walk,
speaks loudly and a loud speech, etc). The connection between qualitative
adverbs and adjectives is obvious. In most cases the adverb is derived from the
adjective with the help of the most productive adverb-forming suffix –ly.

Qualitative
adverbs, with or without –ly, are a subclass of adverbs with peculiar
lexico-grammatical features. According to their meaning, the include adverbs of
manner (well, badly, fast, quickly, clearly, suddenly, deeply, sincerely,
willingly, sideways, somehow, how, etc.).

Qualitative
adverbs usually modify verbs or statives. As they characterize the quality of
an action or state, they are inwardly bound with a verb or stative and are
usually placed as close as possible to the verb or stative they modify:

Tony and the
daughter of the Polish governor catch one glimpse of each other and are madly
aflame [16].

Table 1: Characteristic
features of qualitative adverbs

1. Lexico-grammatical meaning

Show the quality of an action or
state

2. Typical stem-building affixes

-ly

3. Morphological categories

Subclass of adverbs

4. Typical patterns of
combinability

Are placed to the verb or stative
they modify

5. Syntactic functions

Modify verbs or statives

Here is the
list of qualitative adverbs which describe the way in which is done [16, 291]:

Abruptly

Steadily

Accurately

Steeply

Awkwardly

Stiffly

Badly

Strangely

Beautifully

Subtly

Brightly

Superbly

Brilliantly

Swiftly

Briskly

Systematically

Carefully

Tenderly

Carelessly

Thickly

Economically

Effectively

Efficiently

Evenly

Explicitly

Faintly

Faithfully

Fiercely

Finely

Firmly

Peacefully

Peculiarly

Perfectly

Plainly

Pleasantly

Politely

Poorly

Professionally

Properly

Quietly

Casually

Thinly

Cheaply

Thoroughly

Clearly

Thoughtfully

Closely

Tightly

Clumsily

Truthfully

Comfortably

Uncomfortably

Consistently

Urgently

Conveniently

Vaguely

Correctly

Vigorously

Dangerously

Violently

Delicately

Vividly

Differently

Voluntarily

Discreetly

Warmly

Distinctly

Widely

Dramatically

Willingly

Easily

Wonderfully

Fluently

Formally

Frankly

Freely

Gently

Gracefully

Hastily

Heavily

Honestly

Hurriedly

Intently

Meticulously

Neatly

Nicely

Oddly

Patiently

Rapidly

Readily

Rightly

Rigidly

Roughly

Ruthlessly

Securely

Sensibly

Sharply

Silently

Simply

Smoothly

Softly

Solidly

Specifically

Splendidly

Quantitative
adverbs
show the degree, measure, quantity of an action, quality, state (very, rather,
too, nearly, greatly, hardly, fully, quite, utterly, twofold, etc.). In
traditional grammar they are referred to as adverbs of degree. They may be
subdivided into several clearly pronounced sets [13, 224]:

Many adverbs
of degree are restricted to a small set of lexical items, e.g. deeply anxious,
highly intelligent, strikingly handsome, sharply critical.

Some degree
adverbs tend to be distinguished in terms of positive and negative attitude.
Fairly, quite, entirely suggest a positive meaning:

I’m fairly
certain I can do the job [38].

He plays quite
well [38].

I entirely
agree with you [41].

Rather,
completely, utterly suggest a negative meaning:

The
instructions were rather complicated [40].

The explosion completely
destroyed the building [40].

She utterly
failed to convince them [41].

The
combinability of quantitative adverbs is more extensive than that of
qualitative adverbs. Besides verbs and statives, quantitative adverbs modify
adjectives, adverbs, indefinite pronouns, numerals, modals, and even nouns:

I quite
like opera [41].

He had become fully
aware of her [41].

Rather disconsolate she wandered
out into the cathedral [38].

She knew it
only too well [38].

Very probably he won’t budge
[40].

Nearly everybody came to our
party [40].

It was nearly
ten [40].

He is wholly
master of the situation [38].

The
combinability of some adverbs of this class can be rather narrow. The adverb very
(frightfully, awfully, etc.), for instance, mostly precedes those adjectives
and adverbs which have opposites of comparison. It does not, as a rule, modify
verbs or numerals. The combinability of nearly or almost, on the other hand, is
so extensive, that these words are close to particles.

According to
M. Y. Blokh, the degree adverbs, though usually described under the heading of
"quantitative", in reality constitute a specific variety of
qualitative words, or rather some sort of intermediate qualitative-quantitative
words, in so far as they are used as quality evaluators [13, 224]. In this function they
are distinctly different from genuine quantitative adverbs which are directly
related to numerals and thereby form sets of words of pronominal order. Such
are numerical-pronominal adverbs like twice, thrice, four times, etc.; twofold,
threefold, many fold, etc. Thus, the first general subclass of adverbs is
formed by qualitative adverbs which are subdivided into qualitative adverbs of
full notional value and degree adverbs — specific functional words.

Circumstantial
adverbs
do not characterize the action itself but name certain circumstances attending
the action described in the sentence and usually referring to the situation as
a whole. Therefore circumstantial adverbs can be used in a sentence in which
the only verb is a link-verb, that is, where no action is described:

He will be ten
tomorrow.

This accounts
for the fact that, unlike qualitative and quantitative adverbs, circumstantial
adverbs are not necessarily placed near the verb, they may occupy different
places in the sentence:

It wasn’t any
too warm yesterday [41].

Yesterday they had a snow-squall
out west [41].

Circumstantial
adverbs may be considered as the movable words [25, 284]. The most mobile are
adverbs of time and place. They can occupy several positions without any change
in their meaning, as in:

Usually he signs well.

He usually
signs well.

He signs well usually.
[25, 284]

When H. Sweet
speaks of adverbs, as showing almost the last remains of normal free order in
Modern English, it concerns, mostly, circumstantial adverbs [35].

Barring some
adverbs with the –ward(s) suffix (backwards, inwards), the –ice suffix (twice,
thrice), circumstantial adverbs have no typical stem-building elements (Cf.
with the –ly suffix incident to qualitative adverbs). They are often
morphologically indivisible (north, home, down, etc.), even more often are they
related by conversion with prepositions (in, out, behind), conjunctions (since,
before), nouns (north, home), adjectives (late, fare).

Only a small
group of circumstantial adverbs denoting indefinite time and place have
opposites of comparison. Most adverbs of this subclass have no forms of any
grammatical category.

Circumstantial
adverbs are mostly used in the function of adverbial modifiers of time and
place. But sometimes they can be used in other functions, for instance, as
attribute:

See the notes above
[38].

The room upstairs
is vacant [38].

Among
circumstantial adverbs there is also a special group of pronominal adverbs when,
where, how, why used either as interrogative words to form questions, or as
connectives to introduce subordinate clauses:

Where shall we go?

We’ll go where
you want. [16, 295]

In the former
case, owing to their auxiliary function, they are called interrogative
adverbs [16, 295]:

When did you see him last?

Where are you going?

How did you manage to do it?
[16, 295]

In the latter
case, also owing to their auxiliary function, they called conjunctive
adverbs [16, 295]:

Sunday was the
day when he was least busy.

The thing to
find out is where he is now.

How it was done remains a
mystery to me. [16, 295]

The adverb
how, in addition to the above functions, may also be placed at the head of an
exclamatory sentence. In this case it is often followed by an adjective or an
adverb but it may also be used alone. This how is sometimes called the
exclamatory how:

How unfair grown-ups are!
[38]

Look how
well I’m looked after! [38]

According to
M. Y. Blokh, circumstantial adverbs are divided into notional and functional
[13, 224].

The functional
circumstantial adverbs are words of pronominal nature. Besides quantitative
(numerical) adverbs mentioned above, they include adverbs of time, place,
manner, cause, consequence. Many of these words are used as syntactic
connectives and question-forming functionals. Here belong such words as now,
here, when, where, so, thus, how, why, etc.

As for
circumstantial adverbs of more self-dependent nature, they include two basic
sets:

The two
varieties express a general idea of temporal and spatial orientation and
essentially perform deictic (indicative) functions in the broader sense.
Bearing this in mind, we may unite them under the general heading of
"orientative" adverbs, reserving the term "circumstantial"
to syntactic analysis of utterances [13, 225].

Thus, the
whole class of adverbs will be divided, first, into nominal and pronominal, and
the nominal adverbs will be subdivided into qualitative and orientative, the
former including genuine qualitative adverbs and degree adverbs, the latter
falling into temporal and local adverbs, with further possible subdivisions of
more detailed specifications [13].

Table 3: Characteristic
features of circumstantial adverbs

1. Lexico-grammatical meaning

Name certain circumstances
attending the action as a whole

2. Typical stem-building affixes

-ward(s) suffix, -ice suffix

3. Morphological categories

Only certain circumstantial adverbs
denoting indefinite time and place (soon, late, often, near, far) can form
degrees of comparison

4. Typical patterns of
combinability

Modify verbs, sometimes nouns or
words of nominal characters, occupy different places in the sentence

Here is the
list of adverbs which are used to indicate the circumstances in which an action
takes place [16, 292]:

Accidentally

Privately

Alone

Publicly

Artificially

Regardless

Automatically

Retail

Bodily

Scientifically

Collectively

Secretly

Commercially

Solo

Deliberately

Specially

Directly

Symbolically

Duly

Wholesale

First-class

Full-time

Illegally

Independently

Indirectly

Individually

Innocently

Instinctively

Involuntarily

Jointly

Legally

Logically

Mechanically

Naturally

Officially

Openly

Overtly

Part-time

Personally

Politically

Chapter 3. Syntagmatic valency of
adverbs and its actualization in speech

3.1 Syntactic valency and
combinability patterns of adverbs

Every word is
characterized by its semantic and syntactic valencies potentially inherent in
it, which in syntagmatics become the actualization of these potentials, i.e.
semantic (or lexical) and syntactic combinabilities.

The
establishment of constructional syntagmatic relations is conditioned by the
valent properties of the units entering into the syntagmatic relation. The
valency of notional units is their potential ability to get into syntagmatic
relations and to pattern with the units of appropriate types. The character of
valency is predetermined by the semantic specialization and by the semantic
completeness of the unit. These characteristics are evidently diametric: the
more specialized a notional element is the less valent it is [1]. But it does
not mean that semantically specialized notional units are devoid of any
valency, they can pattern with extentions which are optional.

Syntagmatic
valencies can be of categorial, subcategorial and individual character [26,
40]. The categorial valency is usually specified by the subcategorial valent
properties of linguistic units. Their interaction makes the unit active in its
syntagmatic behaviour when its valency is realized. For instance, every
lexico-grammatical class of notional words possesses categorial and
subcategorial valency.

Due to their
central role in the sentence notional verbs are the most syntagmatically active
elements which realize their valency functioning as “heads” in syntactic
constructions of nominal and adverbial complementation.

According to
their categorial valency substantive elements display patterning with the
qualitative elements which are designed to denote qualities of objects and
phenomena. The categorial valency of qualifying elements (adjectives and
adverbs) is not strong, they pattern regularly with degree adverbs: too
imposing, very short, extremely difficult, easily enough. The subcategorial and
individual valencies are in full accord with the categorial valency of
linguistic units [26, 42].

Since the
valency of linguistic units is their potential ability to contract syntagmatic
relations, it should be actualized in speech. This takes place in speech
communication whenever linguistic units occur in actual speech units
(utterances). The actualization of valency is achieved through the concrete combinability
of linguistic units in quite concrete cases of their occurrence in speech units
[4].

The
realization and actualization of the valent properties pertaining to units and
classes of units are conditioned by several factors among which the semantic compatibility
of combining elements is of primary regulating significance [26, 42]. The
actualization of valency is regulated and conditioned by contextual conditions
or the distribution of a linguistic unit.

Here is the
list of possible models of grammatical (syntactic) combinability of adverbs in
modern English [12, 146]:

Adv + Adj

Adv + Adv

Adv + N

Adv + V

Adj + Adv

N + Adv

V + Adv

Adv + conj +
Adj

Adv + conj +
Adv

Adv + conj + N

Adv + conj + V

Adj + conj +
Adv

N + conj + Adv

V + conj + Adv

Adv + link + Adj

Adv + link +
Adv

Adv + link + N

Adv + link + V

Adj + link +
Adv

N + link + Adv

V + link + Adv

Adv + prp +
Adj

Adv + prp +
Adv

Adv + prp + N

Adv + prp + V

Adj + prp +
Adv

N + prp + Adv

V + prp + Adv

It follows
that adverbs could realize their syntactic valent properties in 7 models of
contact combinability and 21 models of distant combinability. But the results
of numerous studies demonstrate that the following models of syntactic
combinability of adverbs are typical for modern English [12, 147]:

Morphological
characteristics of the notional units can influence their syntactic valent
properties or they can remain neutral with respect to these
properties. For instance, the category of degrees of comparison of adverbs
remains neutral with respect to valent properties of notional units in such
models of combinability as Adv + Adv (well enough, better enough), Adj + Adv
(good enough, better enough), V + Adv (move slowly, move more slowly), Adv +
prp + N (early in February, earlier in February).

The meaning of
models of combinability of English adverbs with other notional units is
determined by semantic relations which occur in the process of their
interaction.

In accord with
their categorial meaning, adverbs are characterised by combinability with
verbs, adjectives and words of adverbial nature. The functions of adverbs in
these combinations consist in expressing different adverbial modifiers. Adverbs
can also refer to whole situations; in this function they are considered under
the heading of situation-"determinants" [13, 220]:

The woman was
crying hysterically. (an adverbial modifier of manner, in left-hand
contact combination with the verb-predicate)

Wilson looked
at him appraisingly. (an adverbial modifier of manner, in left-hand
distant combination with the verb-predicate)

Without
undressing she sat down to the poems, nervously anxious to like them...
(an adverbial modifier of property qualification, in right-hand combination
with a post-positional stative attribute-adjective)

Then he stamps his boots again
and advances into the room. (two adverbial determinants of the situation: the
first — of time, in right-hand
combination with the modified predicative construction; the second — of recurrence, in left-hand
combination with the modified predicative construction) [13, 220]

Adverbs can
also combine with nouns acquiring in such cases a very peculiar
adverbial-attributive function, essentially in post-position, but in some cases
also in pre-position:

The world today
presents a picture radically different from what it was before the Second World
War.

Our vigil overnight
was rewarded by good news: the operation seemed to have succeeded.

Franklin D.
Roosevelt, the then President of the United States, proclaimed the
"New Deal" — a new Government economic policy. [13, 220]

The use of
adverbs in outwardly attributive positions in such and like examples appears to
be in contradiction with the functional destination of the adverb — a word that is intended to qualify a
non-nounal syntactic element by definition.

However, this
seeming inconsistence of the theoretical interpretation of adverbs with their
actual uses can be clarified and resolved in the light of the syntactic
principle of nominalisation elaborated within the framework of the theory of
paradigmatic syntax [13, 221]. In accord with this principle, each predicative
syntactic construction paradigmatically correlates with a noun-phrase
displaying basically the same semantic relations between its notional
constituents. A predicative construction can be actually changed into a
noun-phrase, by which change the dynamic situation expressed by the predicative
construction receives a static name. Now, adverbs-determinants modifying in
constructions of this kind the situation as a whole, are preserved in the corresponding
nominalised phrases without a change in their inherent functional status:

The world that
exists today. →
The world
today.

We kept vigil
overnight. →
Our vigil
overnight.

Then he was
the President. →
The then President.

These
paradigmatic transformational correlations explain the type of connection
between the noun and its adverbial attribute even in cases where direct
transformational changes would not be quite consistent with the concrete
contextual features of constructions [13, 221]. What is important here, is the
fact that the adverb used to modify a noun actually relates to the whole
corresponding situation underlying the noun phrase.

3.2 Semantic and syntactic
properties of adverbs of degree

Expounded in
this chapter is the class of adverbs of degree as one of the most numerous and
syntagmatically active classes of adverbs.

In English
there is a class of lexical elements known as adverbs of degree [13] or
intensifiers [18]. They are so labeled because they are considered to operate
on certain linguistic elements to magnify the degree of intensification or to
amplify certain qualities.

There is a
substantial discrepancy of opinion concerning the terminology related to
adverbs of degree. It can be argued that intensifier is a subcategory of adverbs
of degree, since some (most) adverbs of degree are not necessarily intensifying.
Another view is that an intensifier is a different category altogether. In this
paper neither of these distinctions will be made, but adverb of degree and intensifier
will be used interchangeably. The main reason for this is that there seems to
be no distinction between degree adverb and intensifying adverb in academic
literature.

There has been
considerable academic interest in such adverbs for many years. Stoffel
discusses intensive adverbs, noting that those which etymologically express
completeness have a tendency to weaken over time [33]. There is a high turnover
of such words and this area of language changes relatively quickly.

Stoffel’s
terms, ‘intensives’ and ‘downtoners’, are adopted by Quirk in the seminal Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language (1985) [29]. Intensification is a pervasive
function in language [10]. Dwight Bolinger expands the discussion of
intensifiers from the use of adverbs to qualify adjectives and adverbs, to
these and other parts of speech modifying the strength of nouns and verbs as
well such as the intensifying adjective qualifying the noun:

It was utter
heaven [14, 151].

He notes that
some syntactic forms also function as intensifiers:

He talked back
to her and was she mad! [14, 151]

More recently,
intensifiers have been the object of corpus research. Partington relates the
delexicalisation of intensifiers to syntactic flexibility. In his view the
lower the semantic content of an intensifier, the more restricted the syntactic
environments in which it may occur. The more restricted the syntactic
flexibility of an item, the more reduced is its semantic potential [27, 190].

That is, an
intensifier like ‘extremely’ today occurs almost exclusively in premodifying
position, whereas in the past it was also comfortable in postmodifying
position:

This in turn
relates to the phenomenon of collocation. In fact, the more delexicalised an
intensifier, the more widely it collocates: the greater the range and number of
modifiers it combines with [27, 183]. In other words, the less meaning is
contained within the intensifier itself, the more it will acquire from its
surrounding co-text.

Thus, adverbs
of degree (or intensifiers) are those adverbs which function to increase or
tone down the strength of another word in the sentence, usually an adjective,
verb or another adverb. Intensifiers are said to have three different
functions: they can emphasize, amplify, or downtone [11].

Adverbs of degree exhibit a number of syntactic and semantic properties
typical of an adverb. They are often used, for example, in a preverbal
(including adjectival) position and form a syntactic sequence [20]:

Examples (1)-(4) also represent some of the commonly recognized syntactic
functions of adverbial elements, namely, as a modifier modifying a single verb
or an adjective, or as an adverbial affecting the whole adjectival or verbal
phrase. Thus, in example (1) extremely can be seen as modifying the adjective
difficult, in (2) hardly modifies the verb notice, and in (3) and (4) adverbs
of degree too and absolutely modify, respectively, verbal expressions.

Some intensifiers, however, occupy different position in the sentence.
For instance, enough as an adverb meaning 'to the necessary degree', when it
modifies an adjective or another adverb, is placed in post-position to them:

Is your coffee hot enough [38]? (adjective)

He didn't work hardenough [38]. (adverb)

It also goes before nouns, and means 'as much as is necessary'. In this
case it is not an adverb, but a 'determiner':

We have enoughbread [40].

They don't have enough food [40].

Adverbs of
degree can also modify certain kinds of prepositional
phrases:

They lived nearly
on the top of the hill [41].

I'm almost
through with my work [41].

His remarks
were not quite to the point [38].

There are a
few intensifiers in English which can function as attributes modifying nouns:

He was fully
master of the situation [38].

She was quite
a child [41].

While the
syntax and semantics of intensifiers are generally well understood, thanks to
the work of descriptive grammarians, little has been done to investigate other patterns
connected with intensifiers, notably, their freestanding use. The freestanding
use here refers to a situation where adverb of degree is not followed by any
adjectival or verbal predicate. This is illustrated by examples below:

(1) An interview between a
reporter and a famous soprano:

Reporter: Was
it a bit learning process doing that recording session with the playbacks?

Soprano: Oh, absolutely,
also because it was one of my earliest recordings, and in fact in every
recording, and in every performance, I learn something. [24]

(2) A dialogue between a
parent and a child:

Parent: Have
you finished your essay?

Child: Almost.
I didn’t have enough time for that. [24]

Quirk R.
proposes a number of adverbial categories for English [29, 590, 613]. Relevant
here are the categories of adjuncts and disjuncts, and the freestanding use of intensifiers
presented in the above examples would be instances of disjuncts. The scholar
mentions that unlike the intensifier adjuncts, which have a narrow orientation,
disjuncts are more freestanding: they are syntactically more detached and have
a scope that extends over the sentence as a whole [29, 613]. In fact Quirk R. notes
that not only can disjuncts stand alone, but they also can be responses to
questions or can be used as a comment on a previous utterance, usually
accompanied by ‘yes’ or ‘no’ [29, 628]. Clearly the distinction made by Quirk
between adjuncts and disjuncts is a useful one. Nevertheless a number of
important properties concerning the freestanding disjuncts absolutely and
almost have not been fully explored.

Firstly, the
adverbial element absolutely is considered by Quirk R. as both an adjunct and a
disjunct. The question is whether there is any connection between the adjunct,
dependent use and the disjunct, freestanding use.

Secondly, the
freestanding pattern, as exemplified above, is interesting not only in terms of
the deviant syntactic behavior (a modifier without a head) from the point of
view of a typical adverb, but also in terms of semantics and interactive
pragmatics. From a semantic point of view, even without any adjectives or
verbal elements (i.e., syntactic heads that are supposed to indicate the
content of the semantic scale), absolutely alone can imply a positive answer or
an affirmative action. Thus, in example (1) even though the interviewee does
not state explicitly whether she agrees with the interviewer’s assessment, the
interviewer and the reader can infer unequivocally that she does.

Lastly, Quirk
R. asserts that disjuncts are usually accompanied by ‘yes’ or ‘no’ [29, 628].
This statement leaves an impression that both affirmative and negative
answering tokens are possible candidates with the disjuncts. However, there are
preferred patterns in actual language use. It is necessary to look at actual
language use and understand language structure, including modification
structure, as a dynamic, unsettled phenomenon [14, 18]. The epistemic propensity
of the lexical item and the context in which the modifier is used gives rise to
the independent use.

3.3 The use of adverbs of degree with gradable and non-gradable
adjectives

Most adjectives have a meaning which can be made stronger or weaker;
these are called ‘gradable adjectives’. Here are some examples of adjectives
used as gradable in their most common meanings [21, 134]:

Other adjectives have a meaning which is extreme or absolute and cannot
easily be made stronger or weaker. These are called ‘non-gradable adjectives’.
With non-gradable adjectives can be used adverbs which emphasize their extreme
or absolute nature, such as absolutely, completely etc. Many classifying
adjectives which are used to say that something is of particular type (medical,
environmental, chemical; annual, general, northern, etc.) are usually
non-gradable. Here are some examples of adjectives used as non-gradable in
their most common meanings [21, 134]:

Gradable adjectives are sometimes used with non-grading adverbs such as
absolutely and totally, and non-gradable adjectives are sometimes used with
grading adverbs such as extremely, rather and very, particularly to add special
emphasis or humorous effect:

(= to quite a large degree, but usually less then ‘very’), really (=
‘very (much)’) and pretty (= similar to ‘fairly’; used in informal contexts)
are commonly used with both gradable and non-gradable adjectives [21, 134]:

She is fairly popular at school.

I’m really busy at the moment.

It’s a pretty important exam.

It was a fairly awful film.

The flooding was really terrible.

The bill was pretty huge.

However, fairly (or very) is not generally used with gradable adjectives
such as essential, invaluable, perfect, superb, tremendous and wonderful which
indicate that something is very good or necessary:

Some experience is really/pretty essential for the job [38].

The weather that day was really/pretty perfect [38].

Some adjectives have both gradable and non-gradable senses. Such group of
adjectives includes [21, 136]:

I met my old politics professor the other day. (= former;
non-gradable)

Sue’s shoes are very clean. (= not dirty; gradable)

He left the town because he wanted to make a clean break with the
past. (= starting again in different circumstances; non-gradable) [21, 136]

2.
Adjectives
which have similar meanings when they are gradable and non-gradable. However,
when they are gradable they show the quality that a person or thing has (i. e.
they are qualitative adjectives and therefore can be used with an adverb), and
when they are non-gradable they indicate the category or type they belong to
(i. e. they are classifying adjectives) (academic, adult, average, diplomatic,
foreign, genuine, guilty, human, individual, innocent, mobile, private,
professional, public, scientific, technical, true, wild):

I don’t know where he came from, but he sounded slightly foreign.
(= not from this country; gradable)

She is now advising on the government’s foreign policy. (=
concerning other countries; non-gradable)

They had a very public argument. (= seen/heard by a lot of people;
gradable)

He was forced to resign by public pressure. (= from many people in
the community; non-gradable) [21, 136]

3.
Non-gradable
nationality adjectives indicate that a person or thing comes from a particular
country. Gradable nationality adjectives show that they have supposed
characteristics of that country:

There’s a shop around the corner that sells Italian bread [40].

Giovanni has lived in Britain for 20 years, but he’s still very
Italian [40].

3.4 Semantic preferences of amplifiers

A crucial factor in explaining the independent use of intensifiers is the
collocation patterns of the dependent use. Different lexical items can have
diverse collocation patterns. This diversity is realized at at least two
levels:

1) the preference for different word forms. According to Kennedy G. 76-78
percent of the adjectives co-occurring with the adverb completely have an -ed suffix
[24, 155];

2) the preference for different semantic association patterns, commonly
known as semantic prosodies and semantic preferences [31; 25; 31].

This subchapter mainly is concerned with the notion of semantic
preference.

According to Stubbs, semantic preference deals with the relation between
a lemma or word-form and a set of semantically related words [34, 65]. With
regard to the semantic preference of amplifiers, researchers who have looked at
various types of British English data seem to be, in spirit, in agreement with
Quirk R. that amplifiers can equally co-occur with both affirmative and
negative terms [29]. Partington offers the following observation: a subset of
amplifying intensifiers includes absolutely, perfectly, entirely, completely,
thoroughly, totally and utterly. The first of these, absolutely, displays a
distinct semantic preference in collocating with items which have a strong or
superlative sense: among its significant collocates (i.e. those which co-occur
with the keyword three times or more) in the Cobuild corpus were: delighted,
enchanting, splendid, preposterous, appalling, intolerable. There appears to be
an even balance between favourable and unfavourable items [27, 146]. This
preference is well documented in modern corpus-based dictionaries: absolutely can
be used to add force to a strong adjective [40].

It leads the author to conclude that absolutely has no strong preferences
with regard to favorable or unfavorable semantic meanings in its collocates,
and the only significant semantic pattern is that absolutely prefers
superlative and hyperbolic expressions. Similarly, it is believed that absolutely
tends to be associated with adjectives that are used hyperbolically (e.g., fabulous,
marvelous, fantastic, brilliant, filthy, freezing); the adjectives have both
positive (wonderful) and negative (disgusting) associations [24, 112]. However,
even though it is true that both positive and negative associations are
possible, positive cases outnumber negative ones by a large margin (Table 4).

Table 4 provides a tabular illustration of comparative ratios of semantic
preferences of amplifiers in modern English dictionaries [37; 39; 42].

An element can be semantically positive, including affirmative, negative,
or neutral. The semantic properties of the element following an amplifier are
determined primarily locally, that is, by looking at the semantics of the
collocate alone. Positive expressions in this paper include both favorable
terms such as good, perfect, and beautiful, and affirmative terms such as right
and correct (even when they are used to confirm a negative statement). Negative
expressions are naturally the opposite of favorable and affirmative
expressions, including such terms as ridiculous, horrible, and wrong. The terms
without a clear positive or negative connotation are deemed neutral.

Sentences below exemplify positive semantic associations:

There are times when the calculator is an absolutely indispensable
tool [39].

The most ambiguous cases involve instances where amplifiers collocate
with a negator (no, not) or a negative suffix (im-, un-, in-, etc.) These cases
should be analyzed in the larger environment to determine whether the overall
meaning is negative or positive. In the following cases a combination of
amplifiers with unbelievable and nothing would be treated as positive and
neutral respectively:

That’s on DVD compared to a VHS. It’s completely unbelievable [39].

She looks absolutely nothing like you [37].

On the other hand, when there is a syntactic negation modifying a
positive adverb adjective
sequence, that sequence may be considered, following the local principlementioned
earlier, positive if the adjective is positive:

I am not entirely happy about the proposal [39].

In this case, the adjective happy is positive [42].

Overall, as the data in table 4 show, some amplifiers tend to collocate
with positive meanings, whereas others have negative semantic preferences. More
positive association patterns are found in the collocates of absolutely. The
number of positive cases more than doubles that of negative cases. When
positive and neutral cases are combined, negative cases become a decided
minority. What especially reveals positive association is the case of
perfectly. It exhibits a strong positive semantic preference, with frequent
collocates being good, well, legitimate. There is a preferred correlation
between totally, completely, utterly, deeply and semantically negative
collocates. However, some amplifiers have almost equal number of semantically
positive and negative collocates (entirely, very).

Conclusion

The
categorical meaning of the adverb is secondary property which implies
qualitative, quantitative, or circumstantial characteristics of actions, states
or qualities. In
accordance with their categorial meaning, adverbs are characterised by
combinability with verbs, adjectives and words of adverbial nature. The
functions of adverbs in these combinations consist in expressing different
adverbial modifiers. Adverbs can also refer to whole situations.

The only
pattern of morphological change for adverbs is the same as for adjectives, the
degrees of comparison. With regard to the category of the degrees of comparison
adverbs (like adjectives) fall into comparables and non-comparables. The number
of non-comparables is much greater among adverbs than among adjectives. Only
adverbs of manner and certain adverbs of time and place can form degrees of
comparison.

In accord with
their word-building structure adverbs may be simple, derived, compound and
composite.Simple adverbs are rather few, and nearly all of them display
functional semantics, mostly of pronominal character. The typical adverbial
affixes in affixal derivation are, first and foremost, the basic and only
productive adverbial suffix –ly and then a couple of others of limited
distribution.

Adverbs may
perform different functions, modifying different types of words, phrases,
sentences. Adverbs may function asadverbial modifiers of manner, place,
time, degree to a finite or non-finite form of the verb.

Falling back
on the compiled list of relevant lexical units drawn from the currently
existing dictionaries and miscellaneous theoretical sources, the paper offers a
semantic classification of adverbs into 10 classes and lexico-grammatical
classification into 3 classes.

Adverbs are
commonly divided into qualitative, quantitative and circumstantial. Qualitative
adverbs express immediate, inherently non-graded qualities of actions and other
qualities. The adverbs considered as quantitative include words of degree.
These are specific lexical units of semi-functional nature expressing quality
measure, or gradational evaluation of qualities. The functional circumstantial
adverbs are of pronominal nature.

According to
their meaning, adverbs fall into the following classes: adverbs of time,
adverbs of frequency, adverbs of place and direction, adverbs of manner,
adverbs of degree or intensifiers, attitudinal adverbs, viewpoint adverbs, and
conjunctive adverbs.

The results of
research reveal that English adverbs realize their syntactic valent properties
in 7 models of contact combinability and in 7 models of distant combinability.
The nature of restrictions on combinability of adverbs in 14 models of distant
combinability in some cases is conditioned by relations of objects and
phenomena of extralinguistic reality, in other cases it is conditioned by the
system of the language, namely, by the distribution of adverbs which either
favours or impedes the realization of their valent properties [12].
Morphological characteristics of adverbs and their collocates are either conducive
or non-conducive or neutral to the adverb realizing its syntactic valency.
Thus, adverbs
of manner saying how an action is performed can freely occur with dynamic
verbs, but not with stative verbs.

The meaning of
models of combinability of English adverbs with other notional units is
determined by semantic relations which occur in the process of their
interaction.

One of the
most syntagmatically active groups of adverbs is the adverbs of degree or
intensifiers. The analysis leads to conclude that the more delexicalised an
intensifier, the more widely it collocates: the greater the range and number of
modifiers it combines with. In other words, the less meaning is contained
within the intensifier itself, the more it will acquire from its surrounding
co-text. Some degree adverbs tend to be distinguished in terms of positive,
neutral or negative attitude.